Federal Judge Claims Parents Have No Rights Over Their Children

By Andrea Widburg

Lenin is reputed to have said, “Give me four years to teach the children, and the seeds I have planted will never be uprooted.” Every parent knows this is true: Children are sponges, learning things incredibly quickly. These things then stick, for they are buried in the very deepest recesses of our brains. Today’s leftists are attempting to reinstitute this specific type of Leninism in America. They want your children, and your efforts to protest will be unavailing. A Massachusetts federal judge confirmed this last week, saying that it didn’t “shock the conscience” that a school secretly indoctrinated two children into transgenderism.

From the Daily Wire:

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit from Massachusetts parents who accused public school officials of hiding their children’s gender transitions from them.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Mastroianni, an Obama appointee, criticized Ludlow Public Schools officials for allegedly hiding the pair of siblings’ gender transitions from their parents, but he said the officials’ actions do not “shock the conscience.”

“While the court is apprehensive about the alleged policy and actions of the Ludlow Public Schools with regard to parental notification, it cannot conclude the decision to withhold information” about the children from their parents meets the conscience-shocking legal standard in Massachusetts, the judge wrote in his December 14 ruling.

The case revolves around the fact that the school deliberately made the decision to keep from the parents the demands that they be treated as members of the opposite sex in junior high school:

The 11-year-old girl allegedly emailed school staff in February 2021 and announced that she wanted to go by a cluster of new pronouns.

“I am genderqueer. … My new name will be R**** … If you deadname me or use any pronouns I am uncomfortable with I will politely tell you … A list of pronouns you can use are: she/her he/him they/them fae/faerae/aer ve/ver xe/xem ze/zir. … Please only use the ones I have listed and not the other ones. I do not like them,” the girl wrote, her parents said in court documents.

Afterward, a school counselor allegedly sent an email to staff ordering them not to tell her parents about the gender identity change.

“R**** [B****] is still in the process of telling his parents and is requesting that school staff refer to him as B**** and use she/her pronouns with her parents and in written emails/letters home,” the counselor wrote, according to the parents.

Meanwhile, the girl’s 12-year-old brother asked school staff to use female pronouns for him, and staff hid that information from his parents, the parents claimed.

In other words, said a federal judge, for schools to keep a profound secret about a child who has ostensibly made a decision that could alter the child’s entire life—surgeries, hormones, suicide, substance abuse—is no big deal. It’s a little worrisome, sure, but why should anyone get upset about it? As the Kinks once sang, “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world….” Get with the transgender times, man!

No!

The heck with that. That is not true. Parents love their children; the state does not. The state’s only goal is power, while a parent’s only goal is for his or her child to have the best possible life. It is madness for anyone to give priority to a state that wants to turn children into gender-free widgets who have loyalty only to the government.

And another thing (a phrase I’ve long wanted to write): What kind of 11-year-old expresses herself as that child allegedly did? Anyone with a brain—that is, a parent who knows young people—knows that the letter’s business-like tone is utterly alien to a child. That is the kind of letter that an adult writes, and I’m willing to bet that some social worker, administrator, or teacher not only wrote the letter but was behind the transition.

Admittedly, this all took place in Massachusetts, but it has national implications because it’s a federal judge who made that decision. In theory, federal judges aren’t supposed to reflect local biases and craziness. But thanks to Clinton, Obama, and (now) Biden, numerous federal judges are not just failing to reign in the local madness, they’re encouraging it—and they’ll get your children if they can.

Child Support Needs to Catch Up to Reality

By Ruth Graham

ONE KIND OF FAMILY is the one in an old greeting-card picture: two parents, one or more kids, all under one roof.

But another kind of family has become more and more common over the last several decades. We tend to call it “single parenting,” but it is really better described as an unmarried mother and father living apart, their children, and the government whose laws regulate their relationship.

That set of laws is the child-support system, and it covers 17 million American children—about a quarter of them. But that system is nearly 40 years old, established during a different economy, and built on an old model where the mother was the caretaker and the father simply brought home the bacon. Today, a group of critics is saying the system needs an update, not only to be fair to adults but to avoid hurting the children whose interests it is supposed to serve.

These critics are particularly focused on the role of fathers, who make up the vast majority of noncustodial parents. Fathers are overwhelmingly the target of the current system’s narrow focus on collection and enforcement. And for middle-class and high-income men, it may make sense to require simply that they pay up or else.

But 29 percent of families in the system have income below the federal poverty line, and many more have great trouble making ends meet. Since the system was first put in place, out-of-wedlock births have become less stigmatized and more common, while devastating wage stagnation has hit male workers. As a result, there are legions of low-income fathers far less able to hold up their end of the deal. They may find themselves unable to pay child support, and yet caught in a system that expects nothing else from them.

“Child support is a remnant of the days when we used to think that dads didn’t matter,” said Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University who has spent years researching the ways poor American men cope with unmarried parenting. “With our right hand we’ve pushed these men away; we’ve said, ‘You’re worthless.’ With our left hand we’re picking his pocket….That’s how it feels to him.”

Today, Edin is one of a growing number of academics and policy makers looking at struggling families in the 21st century and concluding that the child-support system needs to do better. They envision a system that would more closely link providing and parenting, and would take a more pragmatic view toward the ability of disenfranchised men to come up with money they simply don’t have, while still benefiting the children the system is designed to serve. What exactly would that look like—and what would it take to make it a reality?

If forced to choose between child-support payments and buying diapers and winter coats, many fathers will go for the option that looks more like parenting than taxation.

THE CHILD-SUPPORT SYSTEM as we know it dates to the 1970s. It was originally a bipartisan policy reform, designed primarily to serve a population of parents who were divorced and steadily employed. Divorce meant there had been a marriage in the first place, and that custody agreements had likely been worked out. Steady employment meant the system could garnish wages directly from a parent’s paycheck if necessary.

Today, however, the lives of many low-income parents look dramatically different. Marriage rates among the poor have plummeted, so there often is no divorce to provide a formal structure for parents’ responsibilities. And employment prospects for men with low education are dismal. “We have a 1970s narrative about a 2010s reality,” Edin said.

A central character in that narrative is the “deadbeat dad,” a figure who emerged in American culture in the 1980s. One moment served as a catalyst: In 1986, Bill Moyers interviewed a New Jersey father of six named Timothy McSeed for a CBS report titled “The Vanishing Family: Crisis in Black America.” McSeed bragged on camera about his “strong sperm,” and cheerfully admitted he didn’t support any of his children financially because “I’m not doing what the government does.” Editorial columnists seized on the shocking interview, and the segment went viral in a time when that meant more than a few easy clicks: Requests for the tape poured into CBS, including an order for all 7,500 schools in the California public school system. CBS News said it was the largest-ever demand for one of its products.

With this cartoonish bogeyman looming over the cultural and political landscape, the child-support system focused on collection and enforcement. Shortly afterward, Congress passed a law forcing states to be stricter about collecting past child-support debts. The approach was bolstered intellectually by a 1979 book by a University of Michigan law professor, “Making Fathers Pay,” which argued that aggressive enforcement measures, including incarceration, could corral deadbeats into complying with child-support orders. In 1996, President Clinton’s welfare reform act again strengthened the government’s enforcement powers against noncustodial parents.

There have always been, and will always be, some fathers who are not interested in fathering, and who would never help out if the law didn’t force them to. But recent research by sociologists and others who work with low-income fathers suggests that is far from typical. For their poignant 2013 book “Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City,” Edin and coauthor Timothy Nelson conducted wide-ranging interviews with 110 low-income fathers in and around Philadelphia over the course of seven years. They found the majority of men were thrilled to become fathers, even though the pregnancies were rarely planned and their romantic relationships and employment situations were often unstable.

Overwhelmingly, Edin and other sociologists have reported, 21st-century fathers do intend to provide for their children. Many of them fail, in the financial sense. But what Edin found, encouragingly, is that with few opportunities to succeed financially, many have crafted new definitions of what exactly it means to be a good father: emotional availability, consistent commitment, and direct fulfillment of their children’s concrete needs and desires. As one father told Edin, “That’s what kept me going in prison, knowing that I had to come out and be there for them.” Although low-income fathers remain much less studied than mothers, other researchers have found similar enthusiasm for parenting. In her 2002 book, “My Baby’s Father: Unmarried Parents and Paternal Responsibility,” Maureen Waller, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, interviewed both men and women who agreed that a father’s economic support was necessary but insufficient to qualify him as a good parent.

If forced to choose between child-support payments and buying diapers and winter coats, many fathers will go for the option that looks more like parenting than taxation. That may be particularly true in cases where a mother is on welfare, because then the father’s child-support payment typically goes directly to the state, sometimes with a token amount “passed through” to the mother and child. “Dads talk about that conundrum,” said Ronald Mincy, a professor of social work at Columbia University and coauthor of the forthcoming book “Failing Our Fathers: Confronting the Crisis of Economically Vulnerable Nonresident Fathers.” “They have to choose between meeting the formal order on the one hand and meeting the child’s informal needs.” If they choose the latter, they become “deadbeats” in the eyes of the law.

Yet researchers say that both mothers and fathers tend to prefer informal agreements, all things considered. If their relationship crumbles—trust is often low to begin with—or if the father gets distracted by a new family, informal agreements can disintegrate, so the formal child-support system is a crucial safety net for mothers and children. But it’s also a system that can alienate fathers from their children, sometimes by literally putting them in jail. Even the burden of debt can be enough to drive a wedge: Waller’s ongoing research suggests that men with outstanding child-support debts have less contact and involvement with their children.

Though mothers undoubtedly have benefited from the child-support system, there’s also a case to be made that they are its victims in a way, too. Unlike parents themselves, the formal system assumes that the custodial parent is the only one with real authority. “If we give in to the notion that the mom ‘owns’ the child, if that’s the default position, then the mom is also responsible for the child,” Edin said. “Moms just end up holding the bag for everything, and men are cast out of society. That is a very bad deal for women.”

OVER THE YEARS, the child support system has improved in one measurable way: enforcement. “The reach of the child-support program, it’s stronger than the IRS in some ways,” said Jessica Pearson, who directs the Center for Policy Research and has been studying child-support policy since the 1980s. The Federal Parent Locator Service draws on national databases to track down noncustodial parents and enforce payments; in fiscal year 2013, state (and tribal) programs collected $32 billion in child support, and the amount distributed has been steadily rising for years.

That’s good news for the families who have received this money. But more than $100 billion in child-support payments are still in arrears, and research suggests that most of that is essentially uncollectible because the fathers simply do not have the money. (About a quarter of that money is owed to the government.)

Would a more enlightened system—one focused less on enforcement, and more on involvement—do a better job of keeping eager fathers involved with their children? If so, it would mean broadening the state’s approach from one that is primarily punitive to one that works with fathers, presuming that most of them want to be good parents.

Some small signs of progress seem to be on the horizon. Last month, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement began circulating a 41-page list of proposed new regulations to modernize the child-support program. (Child support programs are administered by states, but the federal government influences state policy and how it is implemented.) The new rules would make changes like allowing states to spend federal child-support dollars on employment and training programs for fathers. Crucially, they also encourage states to take into account a man’s basic cost of living before making child-support calculations.

Scholars who work with low-income families all have their own favorite ways they would like to see the system change. Waller mentions limiting retroactive debts and revising policies on how states handle interest payments. Mincy would like to see the Earned Income Tax Credit extended more generously to noncustodial parents. Job training for fathers is another big focus: Small studies in New York and Texas have shown that if the state provides training for men who haven’t been able to pay child support, they are likelier to begin to comply. And almost everyone laments the fact that some states treat incarceration as “voluntary unemployment,” so child-support debts often balloon while men are in prison.

Experts also have ambitious ideas about how the system could help incorporate fathers into the lives of their children. Some would like to connect child-support and visitation agreements for never-married parents, the way that divorce court does. Some jurisdictions have experimented with versions of “coparenting court” to help unmarried parents negotiate a more complex agreement that covers more than just check-writing.

And language matters, too. Edin bemoans the widespread use of the term “single mother,” and the way that many government poverty programs are oriented solely around mothers and children. In fact, mothers who are truly single are vanishingly rare: In one way or another, fathers and boyfriends are almost always integral parts of the picture, and those relationships are assets we would do better to strengthen than ignore. She’d like to see researchers and policy makers adopt another phrase, one she hopes would remind us how many lives are at stake in all these arrangements. The term she prefers: “Complex fragile family.”

Father’s Day – Money Is The Measure, Not Freedom

by J. Greene

Men have been honestly caring for their children from the beginnings of civilization. Some have not, including mothers. It has always been that way. We don’t live in a perfect world. Enter the modern state in all its’ wisdom, where all people are expected to tolerate a state-controlled legalized extortion racket because children are the future – but mostly for benefit of the state. The state even routinely combs through bank records in the eternal vanity of finding a few stray bucks from those that dare to evade child support collection. It’s an old game whose influence has steadily increased since the free love movement, when rancorous feminists began burning their bras and politicians saw the political cache they could achieve through social manipulation. As a result, the real role of fatherhood and the definition of a family has been continually cheapened.

In the corporation known as the United States, the system routinely oppresses fathers, while offering poverty support to single and divorced mothers (and some fathers). They have also been oppressing the taxpayer as well, hoping and pretending to bring in more than they spend, even as they send state corporations double their child support collections. Only the light-headed politicians of the United States would think to do such a thing. Of course, these are the same men and women that fund operations as the “policeman of world” while playing “Uncle Sugar” to the world. They even continue to send China a regular stipend because of its’ poverty, while running a burgeoning deficit that the children of the future are expected to pay. This is obviously unsustainable, despite the fact that they indirectly operate the printing presses that prop up the reserve currency of the world. In fact, this is the only reason that the lawmakers that rule “Uncle Sugar” can continue to operate as they have. The nation as it stands is living on borrowed time.

Since money is the measure in the propaganda that is cast about, you’ll find that fatherhood is measured the same way. This is no surprise in a nation mesmerized by the illusion of wealth. Social scientists at Johns Hopkins have decided that low income fathers purchase a relationship with their children.

“They want their kids to look down at their feet and say, ‘My dad cares about me because he bought me these shoes,’” says a co-author of the study in a press statement. “We need to respect what these guys are doing, linking love and provision in a way that’s meaningful to the child. The child support system weakens the child/father bond by separating the act of love from the act of providing.”

Yet, the child support system plugs along mercilessly despite a nation of earners that has not truly recovered from the economic debacle that eclipsed in 2008. Untold millions have been crushed, merely grist for the mill of poor governance. Republicans claim that we must find a way to be fiscally responsible, while supporting the current child support system that imprisons the nation. This is a lie pressed to ignorant people. They simply support the status quo with the illusion of conservative values. Their buddies are merely more “progressive.” Meanwhile, the men that give their blind consent can choose to pretend they are purchasing the adoration of their children, as these social scientists say, or they can realize the truth.

The family is only a family as long as the family unit is together. Once breached by rejection, separation and divorce, a family is not a family at all – especially outside of a committed relationship. That a single mother and her child is a real family is also debatable. The “wise men” of the nation have simply continued to revise the definition of the family to suit their needs. That is the deeper reality that the state would have you ignore to your continued peril. It benefits them for you to believe as you do.

It has been posited that the “Founding Fathers” would turn over in their graves if they were able to know about the ongoing debt slavery and legalized human trafficking that is the United States. I think not. These men were fully aware of the hypocrisy that “America” was built on. The governance of the nation has profited from the slavery and oppression of others from the very beginning with little apology, or admission of error. The lawgivers have even reconfigured the corporation to enslave for personal advantage. Robber barons everywhere continue the public plunder under the pretense of propriety and a kind face when it suits them. Your consent is your ignorance. Even governance is just another corporation. They seduce “the people” with infrastructure and social trinkets. The propaganda machine has continued to eject that notion that the nation is a democracy, the “land of the free.” Who the “free” truly are is for you to decide.

The Birth Certificate Scam

ABSTRACT. Long form, short form, birth pledge, estate, cestui que trust, birth bond, BC bond, Treasury account, SSN, SS bond, DTC…

This article explains the series of transactions that comprise the birth scam whereby governments convert the birth of a child into a financial asset to underwrite the public debt and the issuance of substance-shy currency. Dubbed by the author the Uniform Securitization Scheme or USS, this universal pattern of “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit is revealed to be a blueprint for virtually every event of our lives involving government, from simple purchases to the most complex banking, economic and Court transactions, in particular the metamorphosis of loan applications into salable securities. The article suggests that a comprehensive understanding of the birth schematic will provide the reader with a new plateau to address the complications when constitutors of the government face enticements to become its subjects. The author states that the article is offered to elevate discussion to a new plateau and assist concerned people in explaining their positions to friends and relatives.

THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME

INTRODUCTION.

There was a time when the joyous event of childbirth was recorded in the family Bible to signify the child’s status as a member of the family’s posterity with implied rights of an heir. To this day, the family Bible remains a lawful record that is recognized in the “legal” system. In 1933, when most privately-held gold was confiscated by the Federal Reserve System under Executive Order 6102 and obligations payable in gold were outlawed under H.J.R. 192 (Public Law 73-10), the substance-backed economy was replaced by a financial system based upon credit (IOU’s) which is currently failing under the weight of it’s own nature. What is that nature?

Like “Seinfeld,” very simply, nothing. Empty promises to pay backed by fraudulent presumptions of informed consent. It’s an economy where the books always add up to zero, where the very nature of bookkeeping had to be altered to disguise the void (double-entry bookkeeping), where the notion of a single entry to explain your purchase of a pack of gum was apparently inadequate to hide the theft of your money, where every asset is also entered as an offsetting liability, where the law itself had to be replaced by commercial hypocrisy, where the sum total of all activity in every government licensed institution, bank, Court and corporation
equals zero each and every day, where transactions which once involved the exchange of goods and services of equal value now involve the exchange of “securities” of equal “value” (nothing) as the term “value” is defined in inferior statutory “law.”

Like “Seinfeld,” the world suffers not so much an economy, as a comedy of errors. Perhaps more correctly, a comedy of frauds wherein the concept of “value” is established by words on the page instead of the perceived value of goods, services and labor at hand; where up is down, black is white, and timeless immorality is perfectly “legal.”

It is a well established fact that the United States is defined as a corporation in Section 3002 of the Judiciary Code. Meaning that the United States judiciary operates under the global presumption that the United States is a corporation, notwithstanding periodic attempts by learned attorneys-at-law to treat this fact casually.

What is a corporation? In essence: nothing. A construction of words on pieces of paper. A contrivance without a soul, sentience or conscience. The question becomes, How does an unconscious paper corporation operating in an economy without substance control the population of living people under the original public trust charter? The answer is self-evident. Organized commercial fraud which applies ancient edifices of commercial sleight-of-hand such as legal fictions, certification, registration and securitization to achieve outcomes which would otherwise be impossible (and certainly repugnant to the Founders). Translation: the machines harness the people’s commercial energy through a Matrix of scripted distractions and diversions wherein fraud, falsehood and fallacy supplant the law until amnesia has become endemic. That system is known as the “legal” system, a profit-inspired veneer for THE universal system of voodoo accounting explained in this article: the Uniform Securitization Scheme which runs invisibly as the operational schematic that underlies all public events be it the birth of a baby, the issuance of currency, economic “bailouts,” a court case, a purchase, a loan, a mortgage or a real estate transaction. Without your awareness, virtually every event of your life which involves a public institution has been covertly superimposed on the underlying Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”) revealed in this article, so that the actual events are invisible.

The USS is the EXACT SAME PROCESS used by banks to PLEDGE your credit card and loan applications as the surety for certificates and notes issued by their subsidiaries and sold to investors. Patriot mythology has held that these loan applications are actually securities. As will be revealed, in this instance the legend is true. The evidence is contained in every Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus filed by every bank with the SEC. A Bank of America flowchart published in a 2010 SEC prospectus is included in Appendix B to graphically demonstrate the universality of the USS. This chilling roadmap to the Uniform Securitization Scam may be helpful to review as you read about the pledges, certification, re-deposit and various techniques that comprise the USS.

To understand the Uniform Securities Scheme is to understand the commercial world around you, and the banks, government agencies and Courts that seek to control your life. The author has no objection if a copy of this article is sent to every JUDGE TRUST on the Federal and State benches, and every political prisoner in America.

__________________
I.
THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCAM

The fuel behind the United States Federal corporation, the underlying premise behind every transaction in which you have participated, is the presumption that your labor has been voluntarily pledged to pay the debts of the United States (the public debt). Is this presumption factual or the wild concoction of misguided conspiracy theorists? Is it even remotely possible that the Founders’ descendants are captured as sureties for the escapades of their public officials?

The answer will soon be clear. It will be found by exploring a series of legal maneuvers known as “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit which comprise the essence of the Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”). That same scheme is used at every stage of the Matrix, from the construction of the birth account to the reverse mortgage you sign on your death bed. To understand the birth certificate scam, is to understand loans, mortgages, purchases, deeds and all the other mirror-image substitutions for good old fashioned truth.

II
THE PLEDGE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; SECURITY FUTURES

Almost immediately, the blessed event of the delivery of an infant is marred by using its right foot to make an impression on a hospital birth record (HBR). The HBR provides public testimony of the baby’s “birth” on the continent and status as an “owner” of the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, ownership is not control. In the “legal” system, ownership is defined as a pledge to act as surety for the debts incurred by the property. In the case of the United States, that doctrine is enshrined in Article VI of the Constitution which says:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

In other words, the act of registering the child with the United States Federal corporation through a government-licensed hospital comprises THE OWNER’S PLEDGE OF FUTURE LABOR, the “full faith and credit” that underwrites all U.S. currency and public debt under the ancient doctrine that ownership equals liability. After all, who else but the owners would be motivated to pay the bills?

For the sake of skeptical friends and family, here are the sound bites: Who else but the people of the United States stand behind U.S. currency? Does the issuance of a U.S. hospital birth record signify one’s responsibility to pay taxes and underwrite the public debt?

III
OPENING AN ACCOUNT

The HBR is delivered to the incorporated County for the purpose of transmitting the infant’s pledge into the “legal” system. What happens when you transfer property? What must you do when you make a purchase on the internet? What’s the first step in creating a commercial relationship with your doctor, bank and phone company? They open an account in your name.

As with any asset, the incorporate County as the receiving institution must open an account and log it in. The County Registrar opens an account in the County’s books. As you will discover, the sole purpose of every account that has ever been opened in your name is to leverage (issue) future securities. You are unaware of this because you are unaware of the definition of securities.

Opening an account is a boilerplate event in the Uniform Securitization Scam when any bank, Court, corporation or government institution seeks to assess the owner with a portion of the public debt and tap into your Estate to pay the assessment.

IV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER

As with any account, the County birth account is assigned a number, typically in the format: 123-45-654321. The first number group identifies the corporate State, the second group identifies the year of delivery, and the third group identifies the transaction. This birth identification number will follow the infant throughout his life. The implications are well documented in Scripture.

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1).”

You may wish to read about the consequences of that event to the people of Israel. When we participate in a census for purposes other than to glorify the Lord, we can expect to be condemned.

V
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE

The registrar then records the HBR in the account as a general deposit, meaning the State takes title to the funds (your future labor/commercial energy) the same way a bank takes title to your deposits when you use the bank’s endorsement stamp to print “PAY TO THE ORDER OF ACME BANK” on the back of a check before depositing it in “your” account. Haven’t you ever wondered why checks are made payable to the bank instead of to your account? The PAY TO THE ORDER OF notation is not just a material alteration under the Uniform Commercial Code.

It creates a brand new security wherein the bank takes your funds for its own purposes and disguises the acquisition by issuing credits to your account. This one act is the mechanism by which the State steals the infant’s Divine right to her own labor and converts it into a numbered account to act as surety for it’s portion of the public debt owed to the banking cartels under the Constitution. The United States now holds the pledge of the minor child’s future labor deposited “voluntarily” by the child’s mother as the foundation for all the future securities it will attempt to issue in your name.

The HBR is then placed into a vault at City Hall or the County Seat or a subsidiary such as Vital Records. Those who are skeptical might wish to examine their own birth certificates alongside a stock or bond certificate and read the definition of securities in Section 78c of Title 15 of United States Code (subparagraph (a)(10)). The internet provides immediate access.

VI
LEGALIZATION OF YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE

Your estate here on earth consists of your inheritance from the Creator: your body, the air you breath, your possessions, the fruits of your labor. However, as with your name, churches, money, law and courts of record, U.S. Inc. intends to create a fictional mirror-image counterpart of your estate in the public venue. This process is known as “legalization.”

Depositing your presumed security future pledge into a public account for the creation of securities “legalizes” your labor into a public estate (“Estate”), a vast account which holds the pledge of your future labor (an IOU) to act as surety for your portion of the public debt.

Every time your straw man is “charged,” the government is seeking to tap into your Estate to pay the assessment. Your Estate is merely a trust which has been designated as insurance to underwrite the public debt and create profits and proceeds for public officials who seek to convert you from a member of the posterity they are sworn to serve into a subject that exists to provide them with commercial energy and position.

VII
CERTIFICATION

The Registrar certifies the deposit of the pledge by issuing a Certificate of Live Birth or Certificate of Birth (so-called long form) which identifies the child, the parents, the date of birth and the date of certification. This one act legalizes the pledge by converting the presumption of pledged labor into a security. Section 8-102(a)(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code defines a “Certificated Security” as “a security that is represented by a certificate.” By issuing the Certificate, the Registrar is confessing
that the hospital birth record is a certificated security, and the County is the depository institution which has taken title to the “funds.”

Certification is the same process used by banks to launder your credit application into an “asset”to be sold to investors. The BOA flowchart in Appendix B provides a graphic confession of thecertification scam. Notice that the BA Master Credit Card Trust II is the certificating subsidiary that certificates your credit card application. What is a credit card application? A pledge. It’s your pledge (security future) to pay the line-of credit that the bank “creates” when they approve your credit card application.

Regarding general deposit and certification, the County and Bank of America are birds of a feather. Both seek to interpret your signature as a pledge of future performance, a security future. The act of certificating the hospital birth record legalizes the infant’s pledge as a security future “asset” for posting as tangible funds in various public accounts as you will see. This is the scheme by which the obligation to perform is transferred from public officials who are sworn to act as
trustees of the public trust, to the hapless “legal” Citizen “strawman” created (as you will see later) to act as a substitute trustee through the process of “legalizing” the infant’s pledge into the public venue.

VIII
REDEPOSIT

The Secretary of the Treasury is notified of the pledge presumably by the transmission of a certified copy of the pledge certificate or electronic record of the County deposit, thereby beginning the Uniform Securitization Scam (create an account, make a general deposit, certificate the “asset,” issue derivative securities as if they’re tax exempt original issues) once again.

The Secretary’ delegates open an account identified by the previously assigned birth certificate number for the sole purpose of leveraging (issuing) securities against your Estate. The infant’s pledge represented by the Certificate of Live Birth is deposited, again generally, providing the “funds” against which future securities will be issued.

THIS IS HOW THE CORPORATION TAPS INTO THE ESTATE TO UNDERWRITE EVERY SECURITY THAT IT ISSUES, every indictment, citation, bill, bond, charging instrument, complaint, summons, arrest warrant, promissory note, assessment and mortgage.

THIS IS WHY THE GURUS HAVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING IS PREPAID. Under the
UCC, the term “for value” is defined as a pre-paid account. The birth account at Treasury is the prepaid account against which all such assessments, and your setoffs and acceptances “for value” will be drawn. The pre-payment is the long form Certificate of Live Birth representing the security future pledge of future labor.

This is the account that supplies the funds when you mark a bill “charge the same toJOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789.”

This is the elusive “Treasury account” prosecutors love to ridicule when prosecuting a patriot. For many patriots, this may be the first time you have understood what you’ve been writing in your acceptances. Without this understanding, how could you possibly hope to enforce them? The potential damage to themselves and the technology when thousands of people issue acceptances without adequate understanding of the processes and cheer each other on in internet groups is self-evident.

IX
CREATION OF A TRUST

When property is transferred, a trust relationship is created. The recipient has an obligation to perform in some fashion such as processing an instrument, protecting the property or delivering a bill. The recipient is therefore a trustee. Section 401 of the Uniform Trust Code confirms that a trust is created upon transfer of property.
SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.

A trust may be created by:

(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee…

As with any conveyance of property, the deposit of the pledge creates a trust in which the recipient has a trustee obligation to process the instrument. This is the so-called Birth Certificate
trust. It is not the result of some bureaucrat recording a trust, but the natural consequence of a transfer. The birth trust is identified by the original birth number assigned by the County registrar. As you will see, this number represents a variety of accounts, trusts, securities and certificates all derived from the original pledge.

X
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE BIRTH BOND

The first security issued from the Treasury account is the birth bond which the United States uses to underwrite its currency. Like the pledge, the birth bond is a certificated book-entry security future, a bet against your future performance, which is re-presented (noticed) into the public by a certificate: the short form Birth Certificate. Like any bond, the birth bond is nothing more than evidence of debt; evidence that the Estate (your labor) is the surety for the infant’s portion of the public debt.

As you may suspect, the purpose of the birth bond is to leverage more securities using the USS template described in this article. The profiteering begins when the birth bond is traded dollar for dollar for money issued by the Federal Reserve, permitting Treasury to place the money into circulation under the premise that it is backed by the people’s “full faith and credit.” The bond is transmitted by the Fed to The Depository Trust Company where it is placed into “safe keeping” for the purpose of re-issuing a vast array of derivative securities, each one written against the pledge and designed to elicit your consent for profiteering.

XI
REGISTRATION

One of the most seemingly benign cogs in the Uniform Securitization Scam, registration, is the process by which a creditor registers a security interest against the owner. Registration is a pernicious method used to take control of “legalized” property by a genuine or presumed secured party under protection of the “legal” franchise and it’s incorporated judiciary. Here are some excerpts from the twelve paragraph operational arrangements published by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) to govern DTC Direct and Indirect Participants:

“The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the securities (the “Securities”). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.”

“Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security (“Beneficial Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase.”

There it is in black and white. The birth bond is “registered” to the benefit of DTC. DTC will not even mention the “Beneficial Owner”—the beneficiary—in its records. By combining the terms “beneficiary” (the sole party with the right to enjoy the fruits of the security) with “owner” (the party that’s liable for all of the debts and injuries caused by the security), you have been reduced to the lowest common denominator: an owner. Forget the adjective “Beneficial,” you don’t matter at all. Your only right is to order the sale of the security to the next hapless owner. If this is hard to accept, ask yourself who suffers when the value of a stock certificate registered to DTC suddenly falls. The owner. Who pays the margin? The owner. Who sells at a loss? The owner. Who makes a profit on the sale by having locked in its position as holder of the security?

The Depository Trust Company.

Conversely, as stated by DTC, the Direct Participant (the financial institution that made the deposit, in this case, the Fed) will be credited with the value of the security. This means that DTC will post the birth bond on its books as a credit to the Direct Participant, not you, allowing the Direct Participant to enjoy the increase in net worth, to borrow against the value, to post between 3 and 10 percent of the bond’s value to the Direct Participant’s reserves thereby allowing the Direct Participant to lend out at least nine times the value of the securities using YOUR pledge as the source of credit.

So while your Estate pays all of the bills assessed against the straw man, the Fed enjoys the value of your pledge. IT IS THROUGH THE BOOK-ENTRIES DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR THE POSTING OF VALUE IN THE RESERVE ACCOUNTS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, THAT THE PUBLIC TAPS INTO YOUR ESTATE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. In other words, if a Court wishes to assess your Estate, it deposits the indictment security into an account opened in the name of your straw man, and charges the Estate by issuing an arrest warrant security to bring you in for the purpose of consenting to the assessment.

Meanwhile, it is trading against the reserve posting by issuing and trading a Case bond issued from the same account.

XII
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOND

The next security issued by Treasury against the pledge is the master Social Security bond. The purpose of the bond is to create a trust (upon redeposit) which will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

XIII
OPENING AN ACCOUNT; SOCIAL SECURITY

Following the Uniform Securitization Scam blueprint, Treasury authorizes the opening of an account to receive the Social Security bond for the customary purpose of leveraging securities.

XIV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER; SSN

Unlike the birth account maintained by the County and the Secretary of the Treasury, the SS account is assigned a new name and number: JOHN HENRY DOE, SSN 123-45-6789 for the purpose of identifying various derivative bonds to be issued from the account against your Estate (your pledge).

XV
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE TO THE SS BOND

As previously described regarding the birth bond, the master Social Security bond is deposited generally into the SS account.

XVI
CREATING A TRUST; SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST

As with any transfer of property, the deposit of the SS bond creates a trust relationship. Over the years, the SS trust, JOHN HENRY SMITH ID # 123-45-6789, has become notorious. But the purpose of the trust is worth repeating: The SS trust will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as
surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

The SS trust is a manifestation of debt. It is debt, and nothing more. Internalizing that understanding is helpful to returning control from public officials to the rightful beneficiary that issued the pledge. The trust directives (the terms of the trust) are all the rules and regulations compiled in United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. And guess who is obligated to obey them?…

XVII
PRESUMPTIONS

The Social Security trust is the vehicle used by public officials to plunder the Estate. Upon deposit of the Social Security bond, the Department of the Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service is the trustee of record. But the government bank would rather be the beneficiary. In order to presume that the United States is the beneficiary, Treasury presumes that the straw man account is also a trustee of the SS trust with the obligation to perform all of the trustee’s duties under the public trust. After you accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions, the presumption is fulfilled. From then on, the straw man will be treated as a vehicle for transmitting public debt assessments to the Estate by “charging” the straw man for the liability

The stranglehold of the Uniform Securitization Scheme on our lives is BROKEN when we reverse the process and use the SS trust to transmit funds from the Estate to the assessing party upon our express authorization. The name of this process is “setoff.”
__________________
THE UNIFORM IN UNIFORM

Every public transaction mimics the Uniform Securitization Scam. During the $700B bailout of 2008, Treasury issued $700B in bonds, the Fed issued $700B of U.S. money, the bonds were exchanged for the funds and then deposited with DTC following the USS model.

When a prosecutor lodges an indictment with a Court, the Court opens an account, the indictment or information is deposited generally, and an arrest warrant is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When an attorney lodges a complaint with a Court, the Court opens an account, the complaint is deposited generally, and a summons is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When you make a withdrawal from at a bank, the bank endorses your draft “PAY TO THE ORDER OF” thereby creating a new security which it posts in its books and exchanges for Federal Reserve Notes, securities of equivalent value.

When you issue a mortgage (promissory) note, the bank opens an account, deposits the note generally thereby taking title to the funds, posts it as an asset and offsetting liability at the full value of the note to the bank (which includes the value of all future interest), and issues a bank check to the seller in the lower face value of the note (uneven exchange), thereby leaving a balance owed to the maker which usually goes unclaimed. the purchase of groceries is also a well-disguised exchange of securities, Federal Reserve Notes, a bank draft or a credit card invoice (security futures) for a cash receipt. In the present economic system of credit swaps, the theft of the groceries without providing equal value is ignored. “It’s the securities, stupid.”

All of these transactions are examples of how the USS manifests in our lives.

CHARGING

To “charge” is to draw funds. How does the public levy the Estate to pay an assessment? The answer is right in front of our face. They charge the strawman account 123-45-6789. Might we follow the same approach if we intend to draw the funds for an acceptance from the Estate?: CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321 (birth name and # as they appear on the long form Certif. of Birth) or CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 (the SS trust as used by the public customarily to transmit debt to the Estate) The latter form more closely mimics the customary business practices of public institutions.

Notice, a patriot favorite, the “exemption number:” 123456789, is not mentioned. It is strongly suggested that the reader does NOT consider this an invitation to start issuing acceptances. The contents of this article is merely scratching the surface regarding such transactions.

EXEMPTION NUMBER
When the redemption movement began in the last millennium, our knowledge was considerably less. While we believed that a private account must appear on the books to receive the funds and property that had been confiscated in 1933, the identity of that account was elusive. The exemption number was a convention to represent that account in our paperwork. We now understand that the birth number is universally applied to all accounts, trusts, securities and certificates associated with the infant’s pledge of our one true commodity, our future labor.

So it appears that the value of the Exemption ID Number has lapsed.

CREDITING

Regarding our setoffs, to “credit” is to apply the funds where desired. If we wish to credit the straw man, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789

If we wish to credit a vendor’s account, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

We might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 FOR FURTHER CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123456

Or we might say none of that.

CHARGING AND CREDITING

To specify an entire transaction, we might say:
CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321
CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789
CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789”
CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

A creditor might also choose to use none of those statements and simply rely upon our acceptance in the manner of a standard banker’s acceptance. It all depends on the circumstances and one’s understanding of the accounting.

AGAIN, READERS ARE CAUTIONED AGAINST UNDERTAKING BRAIN SURGERY WITHOUT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS, ENFORCEMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC WHO LOST THE FAMILY HOME, HAD HER WAGES GARNISHED, OR WOUND UP IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?

Now you can see the tyranny that all men are under.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:10

But enduring it is not enough.

The Disconnect On How Child Support Laws Are Viewed & How They Work

reviewed by Moody Jim Rathbone

The public views court-ordered formulas calculating child support in the United States and England to be unfair, according to a study released Monday. Articles proclaim that researchers hope that this will be valuable information for policymakers dealing with family law issues. Existing child support law is not consistent with the basic application of fairness that most people have.

Here’s the kicker. The research ultimately found that the public believes child support should be adjusted higher or lower based on the mother’s income (assuming she is the custodial parent caring for the children). If you take this statement alone and at face value, the danger and disconnect here seems to be that the income of the father is ignored. Hm-m.

In some states, child support is based solely on the noncustodial parent’s income, while in others both incomes are used in the calculation with an emphasis on the noncustodial parent’s income. Each state has a set formula for judges to use in child support cases.

This study used face-to-face questions and feelings about certain courtroom scenarios. Respondents were found to be three times as responsive than the law when it came to adjusting child support based on income changes of the noncustodial parent. In one hypothetical scenario, if the noncustodial parent made less than a custodial parent, the amount of child support would be lowered, by $100. In that case, the respondents reported they would actually lower the amount by $300. Judges have grown to be jaded and unfair.

The study also found that once a father was ordered to pay a certain amount, that percentage of his income should remain the same even if his income increased or decreased.

The law doesn’t pay any attention to remarriage of the custodial parent, but respondents wanted to take into account the stepparent’s income. This is also a dangerous precedent, allowing for more ravaging of real families by the state. This begins to tell me that a fair percentage of participants in this study were sympathetic, yet disconnected from the damage that child support is already doing to families.

Non-custodial parents have become targets for a state-operated racketeering and extortion operation. Increasingly, the state is proving to be the mafia, even though most of us have become conditioned to this. Is that an insane statement? Hardly. It becomes apparent when you are the target.

Child support is routinely established at levels higher than the noncustodial parent can pay. Child support is determined by judges who refer to an income table and set of guidelines. Judges do have the authority to depart from those guidelines and modify amounts depending on certain circumstances, but they must justify in writing why a case needs different treatment. This may, or may not be a problem. Yet, the difficulty of modifying court-ordered child support in situations where non-custodial parents have lost their job or had a pay cut is another shortcoming of the current system. Fear is designed to be the continued motivation for the non-custodial parent.

What the study found to be unique was that respondents agreed across many boundaries. “You get that same result no matter what — if it’s about women and men, there’s no difference. High-income people and low-income people are the same, same pattern. If they’re Democrats and Republicans, no difference,” said Ira Ellman, an author of the study and professor of psychology and law at Arizona State University. “You get this result over and over again, it’s true in the U.K. also, so that’s a powerful result, I think.”

Is this study valid in your mind? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

The Child and Family Blog

The Death of the Birth Certificate

by Jaro Henry Smith

Killing a Birth Certificate should be easy, since there was deception involved. When your parent signed it, he thought you would be a natural-born state Citizen, one of the People of your state. But instead, this twisted deception made you a federal citizen, which is a citizen of the federal zone. Remember, the 14th Amendment makes you a US citizen ONLY when you’re subject to jurisdiction of United States. The United States is 1 of 51 state sovereigns in this country, with jurisdiction ONLY over the federal zone, i.e. the Washington DC and territories, so it has no jurisdiction over people in states of the Union (the 50 sovereign states). They can only claim such jurisdiction if you admit to it, or by use of federal ZIP codes.

When your parent signed the BC, there was no meeting of minds, since she was trying to secure for you Citizenship in the Republic, but instead it took you away from the republic and made you a federal citizen of a ‘democracy.’ Your parent, or now you, can rescind that signature on the birth certificate because of deception, or at the very least, a misunderstanding.

On top of that, you can simply rescind that signature simply because you don’t want to be a US citizen. That’s because you didn’t sign that BC, that your parent did it on your behalf, which makes it binding upon you, but only as long as you’re a minor. When you become an adult, you have a choice what to sign, and you can exercise that choice regarding the BC as well, by rescinding the signature as if it was yours.

And if they give you any bull*hit that you can’t expatriate when in US, that’s just a smokescreen since by rescinding that signature, you’re not expatriating, just ending your corporate US citizenship. You are a natural-born state Citizen by birth, and federal US citizen by the BC. When you cancel that BC, the hospital record of birth will be your proof of natural-born state Citizenship. Alternatively, you can show them your Declaration of Domicile, which puts you OUTSIDE of the federal United States, on the land of a state of the Union, so technically you ARE outside of United States, and so can expatriate your federal/corporate US citizenship and retain your dejure USA Citizenship.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone should kill their BC, just showing a way to kill it for those who’d eventually want to return to the Republic, when you get tired of the corporate Democracy crap.

Here’s a Declaration of Domicile:

Jaro Henry Smith, sui juris

Main Street 1422

Costa Mesa, Orange county

California, U.S.A.

Phone: 714-531-3450

PUBLIC                                                                                   

THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL             

Notice to agent is notice to principals

Notice to principal is notice to agents

Applies to all successors and assigns

All are without excuse

Declaration of Domicil

I, Jaro of the family Smith, a natural man, hereby make this declaration of domicil that I am making for the purpose of establishing my California domicil in accordance with the California Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and state as follows:

I hereby declare that I have had and maintained the place of my domicil on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), since the year  _______.

My current home and domicil is on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), and within the  home being my place of abode and domicil; and having the following physical location:

Main street 1422

Costa Mesa, California

United States of America

which home I recognize and intend to have and maintain as my permanent home and domicil and if I have or obtain another house or houses in some other state or states of the Union, I hereby declare that the above-described house in California constitutes my predominant and principal home, and that I intend to continue it permanently as such.

I was formerly domiciled since the year ________, in a home on land of Orange county, California, at

Bushard street 542

Stanton, California

United States of America

I have not maintained, during said times, any house outside of California, a state of the Union.

I hereby declare that, pursuant to the foregoing, I am domiciled on land of Orange county, California and am not: a “resident” of the State of California, a “citizen of the United States” or a “U.S citizen. Furthermore I declare that I am NOT located in, or resident of, any area that is subject to jurisdiction of the United States, but am domiciled on the land of a state of the Union. All unalienable rights of the undersigned are hereby reserved.

Please note that there are no ZIP codes and two-letter State abbreviations in states of the Union. Those designate federal areas and not areas in states of the Union, therefore mail sent to address with those federal designations, will NOT reach me. You must send your communications to my domicil location, EXACTLY as printed above.

As section 602 1.3 e(2) of the USPS Domestic Mail Manual declares, ZIP codes are NOT required: “Unless required above, ZIP Codes may be omitted from single-piece price First-Class Mail (including Priority Mail), single-piece price Parcel Post, and pieces bearing a simplified address.”

Executed on this ______ day of  _____________, 2012. Signed ___________________________, sui juris.

On land of state of the Union: _____________________________   _______________________ county

NOTARY PUBLIC

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, by the above-signed Jaro Henry Smith,

 

This ______________ day of _____________________, 2012

 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_______________         ______________________________

Notary Public

The Battle Continues: Slavery and American Politics

by E.J. Manning

American politics has always had a difficult time dealing with slavery of all kinds, which descended from the roots of the founding of the nation. While Abraham Lincoln ultimately did his best to transcend the racism and abuse that has infected this nation. Lincoln commonly evidenced a soft spot for people when it was not popular. When Lincoln spoke out in public office (1856) against the continuation of national slavery, Illinois politicians accused him of “the most ultra abolitionism” in reaction to Lincoln’s verbage: “Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people.” The media of day was hardly sympathetic either, evidenced by the Illinois State Register that proclaimed “his niggerism has as dark a hue as that of (William) Garrison or Fred Douglas.” Lincoln’s opposers, like unscrupulous Stephen Douglas, scoffed at Lincoln and the plight of slaves.

Yet, even Lincoln was hardly a favorite among abolitionists of the day. He was not a god. He wavered consistently, uncertain at to how to deal the plague of national sin. Such is the plight of national politics where human and civil rights are concerned, even today. After the election, Lincoln avidly supported the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which gave full authority to apprehend slaves and to carry out slave-killing pledges by various parties of slavers. On the other hand, Lincoln was involved in colonization schemes of the day. Reacting to the racial fears of the time, Lincoln sought indirect opportunities for slave emancipation. Lincoln summoned a committee of free blacks (1862) from the District of Columbia to the White House. “You are cut off from many of the advantages which other race enjoy.” Lincoln told the members of the delegation that the black presence was to blame for the Civil War, lecturing them on their duty to persuade their people to emigrate to the coal mines of Central America. He urged them to go where they would be treated best.

The abolitionists were enraged by these comments and rampaged against Lincoln as missing the “spark of humanity.” Frederick Douglass called Lincoln a “genuine representative of American prejudice.” Douglass rightly attacked the “tardy, hesitating and vacillating policy of the President of the United States.” Lincoln defended himself by stressing the importance of timing and preparation, reasoning that the victims of racism were hated men. We don’t have a similar champion of human or civil rights in the United States today, despite notorious attacks on the civil freedoms of Americans across the board. Instead, this abuse is justified by carefully crafted manipulation by politicians and corporate powers that expect to benefit from money and authority behind the scenes to feather their nests.

Repeal Bradley Law

In the corporate mind of fascist America, we still need slaves and serfs to serve the needs of the elite. They seek the restoration of the original Industrial America. In their minds, the American Experiment has failed them, and so, they have elected to subvert it entirely for another world order where a man is a dog. This greed and lack of respect for human beings is evidenced by the outsourcing of jobs wholesale from the nation that made so many corporations wealthy, in order to further pad their bottom lines. The same greed and lack of respect exists for those that fabricated and have continued to support the Bradley Amendment for Social Security, which advocates the use of Federal money to encourage the States to aggressively enforce child support by any means, using loopholes in civil law and promoting the using of debtor’s prison. In civil law, there is no professed innocence before guilt. That legal dogma only exists in criminal law.

As a result, the poorest of Americans are routinely oppressed without representation in a system that requires it to get anything approaching a “fair shake.” Slavery has returned to the nation through legal sanction, if it every really left to begin with. We still have the wisdom of ages that speaks against this abuse of power by the old writer of Lincoln’s Day, Horace Greeley: “Enslave a man and you destroy his ambition, his enterprise, his capacity. In the constitution of human nature, the desire of bettering one’s condition is mainspring of effort.” This observation is clearly more right than most American’s today care to acknowledge. The remnants of a middle class of Americans are distracted, grieved and fearful, carefully cultivated by the politics of 9/11. They are owned lock, stock and barrel by the company store, brainwashed by decades of corporate fascism, political favoritism and the lust for power.

The Battle Continues: Slavery and American Politics by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.